"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality," Broussard said. "I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.

"If you're openly living in unrepentant sin … that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ," he added.

Yeah, Jason Collins is really bringing down the high moral tone of the NBA.

Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly. If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.

It’s the blanket free speech argument. (And I know that argument well. As a wildly conservative—this is back in the jingo days before I came out, when I was using the near-lethal combination of pen and temper to shield my own personal insecurities—high school student, I wrote a number of columns for the student newspaper and regional publications in the Chicago area on this subject.) But the blanket free speech argument is a weak one. Any journalist knows that. After a basic media ethics class (the easy way) or a handful of frightening emails from a subject (the hard way), you’ll know a thing or two about libel and slander.

Jackson relies upon his journalist's experience to tell us that the Supreme Court has many restrictions on free speech, and has been cutting back on the First Amendment.

There’s also, of course, obscenity, child pornography, incitement, false or misleading advertising (all commercial speech is subject to limited protection), and speech owned by others (this is where trademarks and copyright issues come into play). Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the definition of free speech over and over again.

Therefore, Jackson suggests, the "fighting words" doctrine should just be expanded a bit to prohibit words like Broussards'.

In short, the "fighting words" doctrine is dying. It's quite rare to see it used to justify censorship. What Nicholas Jackson is asking for is not the minor tweak to current doctrine that he suggests, but a wholesale reversal of fifty years of free speech precedent. Why does he think we should do that?

Now, as a 25-year-old, I appreciate those restrictions [on speech], because, frankly, I don’t want to listen to your bullshit.

Oh, Nicholas. Believe me when I understand that I get that right now. But it's not enough. My right to free speech depends on the free speech of people like Broussard. If you think that that's just a rhetorical flourish, let me remind you of Nicholas' own words:

After a couple of years in which we’ve seen dozens of studies—LGBT youth who are bullied are far more likely to consider and commit suicide; acceptance from family and friends minimizes risk—and a similar number of deaths, Broussard’s words, and the arguments by otherwise reasonable people that they should be protected by free speech, are no longer acceptable. They’re fighting words. [emphasis added]

Yes: not talking out of your ass when you discuss the First Amendment is now hate speech, according to Jackson.

Broussard's team is losing, or has lost. Their traditional argument — that homosexuality is evil, and dirty, and icky, and morally objectionable to decent people — is no longer palatable to most people, let alone convincing. Therefore their strategy has shifted. More and more, the public argument against gay marriage is not that it's morally wrong, but that expanding gay rights will necessarily lead to fewer rights for everyone else. We're told that recognizing the equal rights of gays and lesbians will lead to suppression of freedom of speech and religion.

I don't think that's a winning argument long-term. But people like Nicholas Jackson do their best to make it seem plausible.

"If you're openly living in unrepentant sin … that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ,"

My two cents, irrelevant to this blog, is that despotic tyrants who micromanage their subjects' personal lives DESERVE to be openly rebelled against. Villains like that are usually overthrown at the end of the story. Good stories, at least.

@eddie:
Not all us young'uns are that bad. I may be an idiot, but I know I'm an idiot. I solve most problems by hitting them with a hammer (granted, I am a carpenter).

On-topic, it seems like Jackson is embracing the increasingly-popular "censor that which offends me" idea. Because I'm so righteous, anything that offends me must naturally be so morally repugnant as to merit censorship.

What about the idea of the FCC censoring on the basis of it being public airwaves?

I'm not in favor of a lot of the FCCs positions. But if I take it as granted that they have and should have that authority, is it then unreasonable that someone be censored for inflammatory speech in the same way they're censored for "swear words" or accidental slips?

To be clear: Jackson's position is stupid. And I don't agree philosophically with what I'm asking, I'm just trying to sort it out from the perspective that allows the FCC to say "shit" is okay but "fuck" is not.

I seem to have missed Chris Broussard's extreme outrage about the almighty sin of .. hetro couples living in sin .. or generally copulating out of wedlock. He seems highly selective in his choosing what parts of the bible to (claim to) practice. :)

With the events this past week, we need to spend a little less time worrying about how to curtail free speech and more on getting to know our neighbors of different cultures, different religions, & different sexual/political orientations.

I seem to have missed Chris Broussard's extreme outrage about the almighty sin of .. hetro couples living in sin .. or generally copulating out of wedlock. He seems highly selective in his choosing what parts of the bible to (claim to) practice.

Actually, you did miss it. He's talked before (I forget if it was in this discussion or in an earlier article he wrote about Jon Amaeche) about how his religious views also view heterosexual out-of-wedlock sex as a sin. So, you know. Here's lookin' at you, kid.

Also, Ken, I think you're being a bit uncharitable to Mr. Broussard. I didn't detect any "bitterness and resentment" in his statements today-in fact, he was trying to make a live-and-let-live point, about how people with different beliefs can get along. Look, if believing that other people are sinners makes one an asshat, I guess I'm an asshat. I think we're all sinners. This belief does not inform my legislative philosophy, however.(Maybe this is the wrong time and place to go into it.)

That's why this Nicholas Jackson article was so weird to me, besides the "I'm twenty-five years old, hear me roar" wrongheadedness of his proscriptions. It's that, on the scale of statements from anti-gay to pro-gay, this was hardly the one to merit the jackboots. I mean, these are the comments that have Nicholas clutching his pearls?

I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.

If you want to do cutsie sniping, at least act if he eats lobster or wears a poly-cotton blend. Sheej.

I kind of agree with Linus about what Broussard was aiming at, but with the abridged quotation, it's hard to tell and I really don't feel like digging through his blog. It's entirely possible that the thrust (hur hur) of his statement was one of live and let live. Or at least, live and give dirty looks to.

I do get so tired of the Trite Left's interpretation of the First Amendment; Censoring speech they find disagreeable is OK, but "censorship" includes making them pay for their own meeting halls, printing bills, etc.

Fortunately there are enough people of honest Left politics that know this is hogwash to keep it down to a small background stink.

I don't agree with Broussard at all, but I respect his honesty about his beliefs. We recently had the same gay marriage debate in the UK, and most of the opponents to the idea came out with really weak BS arguments rather than saying what they (presumably) really think.

I always wonder how people like Jackson cannot see how they're hurting their own cause. How thick do you have to be to not realize that writing shit like that will not help. People like him make it so easy for the Right to depict the Left as a bunch of entitled idiots.

What about the idea of the FCC censoring on the basis of it being public airwaves?

Couple of points:

The FCC does not (in the technical meaning of the word) censor. That would involve prior restraint. FCC enforces regs against indecency after it is broadcast by forfeiture (ie: fines or loss of broadcast license).

The FCC didn't make up the indecency regs out of whole cloth. They were fashioned to enforce 18 US Code § 1464:

Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Too much prejudice still about with anything gay related. :( I know this because I have dried many a tear shed by my beautiful, special, funny and kind boy. *sighs resignedly* Go Ken, you tell 'em! ;) x

> Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly.

I realize that's the current trend in the polls, but aren't we forgetting about all that time between ancient Rome & now? What, exactly, makes you believe that sort of societal reversion cannot or will not be repeated?

Sorry if you see that as cynical, but I always wonder how much is real change and how much is people following the bandwagon.

It's been my experience that anything following "I'm a Christian," or "As a Christian," more oft than not is obnoxious claptrap. As the saying goes, "It's one thing to be thought of as stupid, another to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [*]

That said, I completely support their right to their beliefs and utterings thereof. I just couldn't agree with them, not having been subjected to the same childhood indoctrination.

As far as I can tell, Christians that don't have this tendency to preface everything with their affiliation tend to be a heck of a lot more sensible in both their outlook on things and speech. Even though these presumably outnumber the former by an order of magnitude or two, they're not as vocal, so it's easy to conclude that all Christians are stark raving lunatics.

Near as I can tell, apart from a few idiosynchrasies, they're no more or less mad than others. Besides, being a bit insane in today's world is required to keep your overall sanity. ;)

[*] I've yet to find a counter example where "As a Christian," was followed by something worth while. There could well be a few. Jesus was [**] a cool frood who knew where his towel was, but some of his fans could do with a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster or two.

[**] Subject to debate whether he was a cool frood historically, fictionally or a bit of both; not relevant to the point I was making, though.

I expect that Jackson isn't going to get much support on this blog, but what can defenders of the first amendment do to effectively change the quality of discourse in this area? Making fun of Jackson is entertaining and all, but its not going to have any meaningful effect, long term.

Ken is doing us a service by pointing out that this gentleman needs remedial 1st Amendment education, but what's next? Is there any way we can make real progress?
Jeff

I wonder what it is going to do to Nicholas Jackson's confidence when he realizes that he sounds a lot like Chris Broussard? Both want to prevent something that they don't like from sullying their eyes and ears. Both wish there was a law to prevent it.

I don't like Chris Broussard's position. I really don't. To me he isn't a Christian, in any way, shape or form, even if he pretends he is one.

I feel the same way about the nitwits who show up to Gay Pride events in far-out bondage gear. Dressing up like a dancer in Rio's Carnival is one thing. Hitching your bondage pony to the surrey is bad taste and freaks out the people you claim you want to accept you.

If what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom (or basement dungeon) is none of my business (and I certainly don't want it to be) please don't make it impossible for me to not imagine it, OK?

(This goes with what Linus said)
As far as Broussard goes, does anyone know if he released that statement on his own or if he was asked about it? If the former, then he seems to be using the line "well, I think straight sex outside marriage is wrong too" to cover up his eagerness to jump in about the gay guy. If he was asked what he thought, though, then he's just being honest.

@Jeroen, let me see if I can be the exception to the rule:
As a Catholic I think that any sex outside the borders of heterosexual marriage is a sin, but I have no interest whatsoever in making all the other people follow my religion by force of law. If I can convince someone of the truth of my religion in person, great. If I have to get the government to twist their arm into it, what's the point?

Yeah, those quotes from Broussard are very, very truncated. Here are the remarks as transcribed in a YahooSports column:

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

"… Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

I realize that's the current trend in the polls, but aren't we forgetting about all that time between ancient Rome & now? What, exactly, makes you believe that sort of societal reversion cannot or will not be repeated?

It's a fair question. What's more, Ken's "dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid" metaphor, however effective a taunt, is a statement about his side's (current) power, not the value of its arguments or even its decency. At various times in history, there's been many an unworthy or wicked cause whose partisans could have made the same fling at their doomed betters.

In short, it's more of a bully's boast than an argument. And should that sort of thing become a common trope among the votaries of a social or political movement, something's generally amiss.

@ Luke G – Being gay is NOT a choice, it is the way you are and it's certainly not a sin. I never thought in a million years I would have a gay son but I'm glad for this experience. My life is the richer for it and I feel truly blessed. Come and spend a week over at mine – we'll soon convert you! ;)

@ Shawn Young – ain't that just the unfortunate truth. Lot of people died to give us the right to free speech, we'll just have to plug on until the rest of the world catches up! ;)

@C.S.P.- that makes me think of the hilarious exchange in The IT Crowd episode 'The Work Outing' when they go see 'Gay, The Musical':
Jen: You're not comfortable with your sexuality?
Roy: Oh, I'm very comfortable with my sexuality, I just don't want to be slapped in the face with their sexuality.

I agree the quote is truncated — perhaps against my normal inclination at ALL THE WORDS — but I don't find the long version hugely sympathetic. First of all, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are moved to talk about homosexuality as a sin, but not moved to address other things as a sin — and the NBA's got plenty. Second, I'm very unmoved by the "I should be able to say people are not Christians and in open rebellion to got without mean words being said about them."

Ken, isn't the point that Broussard, in the full quote, is talking about things other than homosexuality as sins? He specifically includes "adultery, fornication, [and] premarital sex between heterosexuals" in stating his view.

@Luke G, I see what you're saying and I agree with you on not forcing views down someone's esophagus. Militant faith (or militant atheism for that matter) doesn't seem sensible. One can't forcefully change someone's mind. "You must believe!" is a particular example that runs counter to the idea of faith, by its definition it can't be compelled.

The problem I have with "As a Christian," is that it leads the reader to believe that what follows is a universal truth among everyone identifying themselves thusly. Clearly this isn't the case. It makes as little sense as a preface as "As an atheist."

To my knowledge neither community is a hive mind to the extent that their beliefs are shared between them absolutely. It's a bit like someone saying, "As a professional athlete, I deplore the use of stimulants." While on the surface an athlete could be said to speak with some authority on the matter, the view is evidently not shared by all his/her peers.

Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine, quite possibly so. Likely it's the use of this device with something illelogical or narrowminded following it that I'm actually agitating against…

If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

That would put the number of Christians in the US below the number of Pastafarians. Particularly if you are trying to stay ahead of the 613 explicit commandments which are actually in the biblical text.

That would put the number of Christians in the US below the number of Pastafarians. Particularly if you are trying to stay ahead of the 613 explicit commandments which are actually in the biblical text.

The 613 number is a Jewish tabulation which includes large numbers of prohibitions from Deuteronomy, which – under Christian theology – was
set aside under the New Covenant.

Under some Christian theology. Mostly Evangelical Protestant theology (but not all variants thereof). Which may be the loudest Christian theology, but not the only one. Even disregarding the Pauline vs. Petrine discussions there's plenty of folks who call themselves Christian that adhere to random parts of the ritualized framework of Mosaic law. If there was an accepted interpretation of the New Covenant in Christian theology, there'd be a lot less schism in the faith.

I surprised by how mild his full quote was after only seeing the excerpts (first on the news this morning, then here). I guess I just see it differently. The topic was (broadly) sexuality and I think he called out all the sins he saw in that area. He wasn't giving anyone a pass.

As for the name calling, for the three he mentions he probably has a point. He's not saying not to live your life – he's saying from his perspective, these are sins. Is it "bigoted" to say you disagree with someone but in the end treat them no differently than anyone else?

That's the beauty of being Catholic, we have enough formal structure that I can say things like "As a Catholic I believe that BEING gay is how you were born and is not innately sinful, but homosexual activity (just like hetero sodomy, sex outside marriage, etc) is not part of a legitimate marriage union open to children, and so forth" and it DOES represent the church as a whole- of course, some disagree with church policy but we frown at that. "Christian" encompasses way too vast of a group of people of varying faiths, so there's no one universal "Christian" viewpoint.

However in general I agree with you. "As a *blank*" usually signals someone talking out their ass and trying to add the weight of all the other *blanks* to give their shaky argument some authority.

I expect that Jackson isn't going to get much support on this blog, but what can defenders of the first amendment do to effectively change the quality of discourse in this area? Making fun of Jackson is entertaining and all, but its not going to have any meaningful effect, long term.

I think we need to address the problem that Jackson is concerned with: Gays et al do have a harder life than the average straight person, they do suffer a lot of abuse and they do have a higher rate of suicide. That's a real problem, and one well worth addressing, but it's a very difficult problem and speech restrictions seem to be a pretty straightforward improvement.

So first, realize that when we argue against speech restrictions, we are telling people like Jackson that we think free speech and the First Amendment are more important than peoples' lives. Because they truly believe that fewer people will commit suicide if hate speech is outlawed. So you need to have a really strong argument if you want to convince them.

Secondly, we need to address the root problem: The shit that non-normal have to deal with preventing them from leading a fulfilling life. That's a non trivial problem, I don't think there's really a clean solution. One thing we could address is whether or not hate speech laws would have any impact. American attitudes towards racism have changed significantly in living memory without hate speech laws regarding blacks, so it is possible to change our culture without changing speech laws. Also, many other countries do censor speech the way Jackson's contemporaries want, does it really have an effect? So, what works and what doesn't work at making life less hellish for outsider minorities? Engaging those questions are the way to get the Jacksons of the world to be less insistant upon censorship. That will separate the people who really want to do good from the censorious asshats.

So first, realize that when we argue against speech restrictions, we are telling people like Jackson that we think free speech and the First Amendment are more important than peoples' lives. Because they truly believe that fewer people will commit suicide if hate speech is outlawed. So you need to have a really strong argument if you want to convince them.

Well, if you accept that frame, I think you're accepting their argument. It's like saying "we are telling crime victims that the Fourth/Fifth/Sixth Amendments are more important than their lives." The problem is not merely the specific instance, the problem is the broad application. Jackson's proposal is unprincipled, vague, and capricious, and could be used to prohibit all sorts of speech, not just his speech.

Secondly, we need to address the root problem: The shit that non-normal have to deal with preventing them from leading a fulfilling life. That's a non trivial problem, I don't think there's really a clean solution.

Sure. But again, note how this is framed. You can frame my speech as something that is protected, that I have the right to utter, and the the government cannot punish without the most extreme justifications. Or you can frame my speech as something others are enduring.

Also, many other countries do censor speech the way Jackson's contemporaries want, does it really have an effect? So, what works and what doesn't work at making life less hellish for outsider minorities?

So first, realize that when we argue against speech restrictions, we are telling people like Jackson that we think free speech and the First Amendment are more important than peoples' lives.

Notwithstanding Ken's response, yes, that's what should be said. Censoring speech based on content accomplishes a lot more than just making some people feel more comfortable because they aren't being annoyed. It prevents meaningful discourse on a wide range of socially important topics. It eliminates the most effective, and least violent, method of resolving differences within our society. And, at least if history is a guide, it inevitably ends up encouraging other, more violent, methods of dispute resolution.

So, while I think anti-gay rhetoric is reprehensible and, especially if motivated for political reasons, should be roundly condemned, that condemnation should be accomplished by more speech, not by legal sanction. Otherwise, more people are at risk, not fewer.

I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

Which proves he isn't a Christian. Or at least that he doesn't read the Bible, since the Bible never actually defines the concept. See Acts Chapter 36, and 1 Peter Chapter 4 for the only use of the word.

The implication is that the word means "Followers of Christ" but it never explicitly states that, nor does it state what being a Follower of Christ means. While Theologians have argued this point for the last two millennia, there is no assurance that they have gotten it right.

Which is a side issue. Chris Broussard may be an idiot, he may be a dinosaur, and he may not be a Christian, but he doesn't appear to be breaking any laws at present.

From his full statement, he is even willing to live and let live, which is more than Nicholas Jackson is willing to do. In fact at this point Broussard is looking better than Jackson :)

I'm not American; I live in a country (Australia) where freedom of speech is protected, but not to the extreme that it is in America. Here, hate speech is illegal. Personally, I happen to believe that is a good thing; I respect the adherence to principle of, say, the ACLU defending the right of neo-Nazis to spout their filth, but where I live, they have no such right, and I'm glad about that.

Having said that: Broussard's comments would, here, draw criticism, and might set off a backlash that would get him fired (which, of course, is totally legit regardless of your laws on freedom of speech, because freedom to say it does not mean freedom from consequences for saying it) but it isn't hate speech.

I mean, on the general scale of homophobic unpleasantness, this is basically nothing. Broussard is essentially whining, at a level that equates gay people with people who have pre-marital sex. It's not just that his side is losing, on that score, his side already lost decades ago.

@In the long run, some do very nearly suggest actually being gay is a sin, but in my experience, those who go that far make a huge deal about how experiencing attraction to other humans as a heterosexual is sinful as well. They certainly do not single homosexuals out in that regard. In my experience, groups like that are bad enough to make asexuals feel guilty for appreciating human beauty, and they are very much off the Biblical rails.

No one gay, straight, bisexual, or none of the above is going to get an STD from being attracted to someone or looking at a billboard. Those groups that go that far with it seem to confuse attraction with lust, giving the impression it is a sin to be gay, or straight, and have functioning instincts. Point is, you say you haven't seen anyone say being gay is a sin. I was letting you know that I have, and those that I know view things that way have some pretty strong views about the sinfulness involved in heterosexuality as well.

@Anony Mouse: Indeed. Fortunately, freedom of thinking is still absolutely untouched by any legal system anywhere.

Astonishingly, it is possible for a democratic legal system to distinguish between "prohibiting hate speech and racial vilfication" and "censorship of everything we disagree with".

For example, staging a protest outside Parliament House, in which the Prime Minister and her government are nastily insulted: legal. Various people expressed disapproval of the misogynistic insults slung at our head of government, but, you know, freedom of speech for one person entails the freedom of speech for other people to say that first person sucks.

However, staging a neo-Nazi rally would not be legal. Staging protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers would not be legal. Because there is a distinction between these categories of speech.

Well to first comment on Broussard's comments (and I'm sure I'm reiterating what thousands of others have said millions of times), come on man. As a person with a logical mind, you're really trying to say that you're not okay with some people openly "living in sin", but you're okay with others (i.e. probably 95% of the rest of the NBA)? As a Christian, really? You're going to be hateful like that and try to say you follow someone who preaches love for everyone?
Now that that point has been made (again, sorry for the redundancy but I had to say it), the free speech argument is interesting. To be honest, I haven't seen the restrictions on speech as always loosening, but it does seem that in the more direct cases, that is the trend. What is concerning to me is that we have a conflicting trend when it comes to free speech in less direct forms, such as copyright (cf. DMCA and the pressure placed on Google/others to remove links to content which is merely alleged to be infringing). Might this not open up the floodgates into a gradual broadening of the definition of fighting words?